Has Chas been off-topic?

[Kildonan]

i am NEVER off-topic, i said i would take it easy

Re: Gherig on drugs

every coach tells their big bodies to soften up the competition.....Gehrig is under orders to do what he does....dont blame him.

Problem is it looks ill-disciplined if the team is playing out of position and lacking confidence..

And this is Grant Thomas' fault.

Re: Saints Rd6 in and outs?

does it look like someone is trying to save his skin and job ??

Re: Well done Saints officials !!!

They stood up and congratulated the Freo Officials....

Well done !!! Now
get rid of Grant Thomas !!

Re: Players Reported

this is the frustration and ill-discipline of playing under grant thomas

Re: Round 5 team changes

Grant thomas in desperation throwing people here there and everywhere and pray like hell.....

Chas - would you agree that you have strayed off-topic in some of these threads?

I haven't banned or suspended Chas, and I think he can make a significant contribution to this forum.
He has been a little fixated on the GT thing but I hope that stems from his passion for the club.
I am hoping to help direct his focus to the positives rather than something he perceives as a negative.

 

[chas]

what the hell !! THOSE ARE STRAIGHT TO THE POINT AND SUCCINCT !!

They answer the thread question, and brilliantly i may add lol

 

[JeffDunne]

chas is clearly an attention seeker - like someone else who poses here as a St Kilda supporter who shall remain nameless.

I have no problems with people that have a negative view on issues surrounding the club, provided they have substance on their criticisms and they are based in fact. We seem to have a few here that claim to be supporters of the club but their criticisms are nothing more than the standard BigFooty moronic trolling (i.e. "GT can't coach", "Goddard a dud", etc).

Maybe chas (& others) should be treated as trolls until they can post specific criticisms based in fact.

 

[chas]

chas is clearly an attention seeker - like someone else who poses here as a St Kilda supporter who shall remain nameless.

I have no problems with people that have a negative view on issues surrounding the club, provided they have substance on their criticisms and they are based in fact. We seem to have a few here that claim to be supporters of the club but their criticisms are nothing more than the standard BigFooty moronic trolling (i.e. "GT can't coach", "Goddard a dud", etc).

Maybe chas (& others) should be treated as trolls until they can post specific criticisms based in fact.

Fact??? fact is the Saints nearly lost to the doggies despite having superior talent sna body size everywhere on the park....You are a fool jeff, at leat i dont get my ass kicked on the general forum, you tool !!!

 

[JeffDunne]

Fact??? fact is the Saints nearly lost to the doggies despite having superior talent sna body size everywhere on the park....You are a fool jeff, at leat i dont get my ass kicked on the general forum, you tool !!!

LOL - clutching at straws there sunshine. I'm not sure what game you watched but it clearly wasn't the game on Saturday.

Rather than resort to name calling, one of your specialties, maybe you could highlight the tactical errors GT made that resulted in us nearly losing to the guru that is Rodney Eade?

 

[Joffaboy]

Fact??? fact is the Saints nearly lost to the doggies despite having superior talent sna body size everywhere on the park....You are a fool jeff, at leat i dont get my ass kicked on the general forum, you tool !!!

Isn't this off topic?

 

[m.diddy]

chas is clearly an attention seeker - like someone else who poses here as a St Kilda supporter who shall remain nameless.
I have no problems with people that have a negative view on issues surrounding the club, provided they have substance on their criticisms and they are based in fact. We seem to have a few here that claim to be supporters of the club but their criticisms are nothing more than the standard BigFooty moronic trolling (i.e. "GT can't coach", "Goddard a dud", etc).

Maybe chas (& others) should be treated as trolls until they can post specific criticisms based in fact.

_Ron_? Is it ron? It's ron isn't it? I'm right arn't I? It's _Ron_?

 

[JeffDunne]

MD44, you forgot the smilie.

 

[exe ex machina]

Chas is an insightful guy who says things in brief terms but everything is ripe with meaning.

I don't know why a St's fan would attack another St's fan who is in his right as a St's fan to question or evaluate Grant Thomas' performance as a coach.

 

[JeffDunne]

Chas is an insightful guy who says things in brief terms but everything is ripe with meaning.

LOL

Maybe you could direct us to some of these insightful & meaningful posts? I'm yet to see one.

I don't know why a St's fan would attack another St's fan who is in his right as a St's fan to question or evaluate Grant Thomas' performance as a coach.

Nominating a club doesn't necessarily mean you support that club. He wouldn't be the first to try that on.

Anyhow, like I said earlier, no problems with questioning or evaluating performance, but I'm yet to read anything from him that could be described as either. A straight out slag is nothing but a troll - even if you are slagging your own club.

 

[sainter]

Chas,

If you continue to take every thread in the same direction to suit your own hidden agenda you'll be banned from the St Kilda board.

It's as simple as that.

 

[mad-saint-guy]

Just ban the freakin imbecile.

 

[bluejay]

I don't know why a St's fan would attack another St's fan who is in his right as a St's fan to question or evaluate Grant Thomas' performance as a coach.

That's not the problem, g.g., the problem is that every time (or nearly every time) he posts it ends up always with the same theme: anti-GT posts, usually with a lack of reasoning (not always), and we're (at least I am) getting tired of reading the same again and again in all kind of different threads. I already know what he has to say because he's stated it too many days in a row. Im not for nor against GT, but chas is getting not only boring, but also annoying.

 

[exe ex machina]

That's not the problem, g.g., the problem is that every time (or nearly every time) he posts it ends up always with the same theme: anti-GT posts, usually with a lack of reasoning (not always), and we're (at least I am) getting tired of reading the same again and again in all kind of different threads. I already know what he has to say because he's stated it too many days in a row. Im not for nor against GT, but chas is getting not only boring, but also annoying.

I agree that Chas has an anti-GT agenda, mentioned in many of his posts. Anthing related to St Kilda, team lists, ins and outs, post-match threads, etc, there is always an anti-GT point that comes across.

Ok, it's boring and tedius. But honestly, how many people out there, including St's people, keep rehashing the same stuff day in day out? I know, for as smart as JD is, he is guilty of being repetitively boring or agenda-driven. I know whenever someone mentions RL-AR crowds, Littleduck, as smart as he is, will be repeating the same stuff over and over. Whenever there is a Port thread, people rehash the same stuff about Port created in 96, or Port's 34 sanfl flags. Whenever there is a Collingwood thread, mention is made of Buckley or their lack of flag success. Carlton - about rorting the salary cap and being spoilt. Essendon - about Lloyd being a diver. Whenever mention is made of a national comp, certain people, including myself, cant help but regurgitate the same "spread the game further nationally" agenda. Rule changes, and steve-o will be there rifling off his litany of new rules. Bee Dee and their same old repetitive agendas. Clash guernseys, and i'll be there pushing the idea of going full-time home and away guernseys with away always white. Or people talking about Eddie's "never wear anything but stripes". Or the TLC board, where every soft-core pic needs a back in 10 comment, or similar line.

Anyway, I could go on forever.

I just reckon that Chas is entitled to his anti-GT sentiments, and if it's getting boring, there's no need to get him banned etc. Just ignore him. Let him rant on, and ignore, discuss stuff with other people. However, I don't think it's fair to label him anti-st's either. Personally, if I was a St's fan I too would be blaming GT for much of the team's lack of success and pushing for his sacking. Just my opinion. I might be wrong, so might Chas. But we're entitled to an opinion, no matter how boring it might be. I jsut think Chas is well-meaning, a passionate St's fan who has had a gutful of poor performances and lack of consistency, and it's frustrating him. Seeing all this potential and talent go to waste from round to round, year to year.

Unless he breaks some BF code of conduct, then calling for him to be banned, or blasting him a traitor non-St's fan is unfair.

Anyway....

 

[Kildonan]

Unless he breaks some BF code of conduct, then calling for him to be banned, or blasting him a traitor non-St's fan is unfair.

Your points are well taken, and if you check my initial post you will see that I don't intend to ban him. Rather, I'm trying to educate him.

I highlighted the last of your post above; "Unless he breaks some BF code of conduct"... this is exactly what he is doing. Posting off topic. We all do it to some extent, but he is guilty of posting the same "topic" in vitually all threads of all topics. This is frowned upon and we are in the process of establishing limits.
I don't want to ban any Saints supporter.
This forum is our sanctuary - away from all the GT bashers and the Saints critics.
It is where Saints supporters catch up on club specific news and have their say on Saints-related issues. To have it flooded (sure its only been a trickle, rather than a flood) with the mindless repetition of the baseless negative garbage is annoying and there have been complaints.

There are threads available for that sort of junk - see New Coach or if appropriate, he could start a new thread.

More appropriately, if he doesn't get the response he wants here, he can always go to the main board and he'll find numerous posters just dying to agree with him.

 

[_Ron_]

Wow communism certainly hasn't died.

So he has a differing opinion??

Does that mean he should be banned??

What is this?? 1950s Tennesee??

lol

 

[exe ex machina]

Your points are well taken, and if you check my initial post you will see that I don't intend to ban him. Rather, I'm trying to educate him.

I highlighted the last of your post above; "Unless he breaks some BF code of conduct"... this is exactly what he is doing. Posting off topic. We all do it to some extent, but he is guilty of posting the same "topic" in vitually all threads of all topics. This is frowned upon and we are in the process of establishing limits.
I don't want to ban any Saints supporter.
This forum is our sanctuary - away from all the GT bashers and the Saints critics.
It is where Saints supporters catch up on club specific news and have their say on Saints-related issues. To have it flooded (sure its only been a trickle, rather than a flood) with the mindless repetition of the baseless negative garbage is annoying and there have been complaints.

There are threads available for that sort of junk - see New Coach or if appropriate, he could start a new thread.

More appropriately, if he doesn't get the response he wants here, he can always go to the main board and he'll find numerous posters just dying to agree with him.

1. Fair enough, its your board, and you should run it how you like.

2. However, why is it a sanctuary mentality? Why is there censorship around certain issues? Why is GT a touchy topic? In the port board, for instance, there are often open critiques of coach centered discussion, where you get the bring back Jack Cahill sentiments and the pro-Mark sentiments, where you get amiable, non-censored fair for all discussion. Not afraid of any topic or meeting challenging topics head on. You guys run it the way you feel is best, of course, but showing far too much sensitivity for certain issues is problematic. A board shouldnt be a sanctuary as such, but a board for discussion. He would probably be better off actually posting a thread about GT in the St's board than the public AFL board. It relates to St kilda more than to the AFL, as he is obviously expressing his distates of GT in compassion for St kilda. However, i have noticed that in the Richmond board certain members constantly calling for the coach's head or mentioning rifts in the club were being asked not to come back to the board either. So maybe this is a victorian thing?

3. One thing i have noticed in the saints board and saints BF posters is that people are not allowed to have a different or negative persepctive on certain things...almost. Seriously, you guys may not see it, but casual observers notice it. Ive oftened seen people getting attacked by st's people for expressing differing opinions, like its something to be hammered out of them. Mockery is made of them, abuse thrown, calls for banning, etc...for people who disagree, etc.

4. Anyway, look, i'll refrain from telling you guys how to run your board, etc. If you guys feel its best to do something a certain way, or to handle a certain poster a certain way, then you guys do that. Just wanted to bring a bit of orderliness to the situation, and st's fans shouldnt be ganging up on each other. Perhaps someone should have a thorough balanced calm drawn-out discussion with him about WHY GT shouldnt be sacked, why it isnt his fault, and what realistic options are there to get the team moving forward, while also asking him to discuss at length his views, and then somehow trying to get him to understand why he is wrong or understanding yourselves why he might be right, etc, in a calm civil and respectful manner.

So, guys, sorry to intrude, best wishes anyway. Hope something can be done where you all and Chas can co-exist in more harmony and understanding.

 

[_Ron_]

1. Fair enough, its your board, and you should run it how you like.

2. However, why is it a sanctuary mentality? Why is there censorship around certain issues? Why is GT a touchy topic? In the port board, for instance, there are often open critiques of coach centered discussion, where you get the bring back Jack Cahill sentiments and the pro-Mark sentiments, where you get amiable, non-censored fair for all discussion. Not afraid of any topic or meeting challenging topics head on. You guys run it the way you feel is best, of course, but showing far too much sensitivity for certain issues is problematic. A board shouldnt be a sanctuary as such, but a board for discussion. He would probably be better off actually posting a thread about GT in the St's board than the public AFL board. It relates to St kilda more than to the AFL, as he is obviously expressing his distates of GT in compassion for St kilda. However, i have noticed that in the Richmond board certain members constantly calling for the coach's head or mentioning rifts in the club were being asked not to come back to the board either. So maybe this is a victorian thing?

3. Anyway, look, i'll refrain from telling you guys how to run your board, etc. If you guys feel its best to do something a certain way, or to handle a certain poster a certain way, then you guys do that. Just wanted to bring a bit of orderliness to the situation, and st's fans shouldnt be ganging up on each other. Perhaps someone should have a thorough balanced calm drawn-out discussion with him about WHY GT shouldnt be sacked, why it isnt his fault, and what realistic options are there to get the team moving forward, while also asking him to discuss at length his views, and then somehow trying to get him to understand why he is wrong etc in a calm civil and respectful manner. Maybe that would work in educating him?

So, guys, sorry to intrude, best wishes anyway. Hope something can be done where you all and Chas can co-exist in more harmony and understanding.

You have my respect with that post. One of the very few i don't look down on regarding bigfooty.

Well written and congratulations to your parents on doing a fine job.

 

[chas]

My my , been away a few hours and all the ruckus !! lol

Still waiting for people to tell me my statements were off-topic when the context ot the thread signify that I can make that statement?

Do I have an anti-GT agenda?? Like duh !!!!

Maybe i should do a "Yes ma'am" line everytime, sure Ron, well said stkildonan, Onya jeff !!!

 

[Kildonan]

Still waiting for people to tell me my statements were off-topic when the context of the thread signify that I can make that statement?

You were off topic.

Maybe in your own mind you can justify stretching the meaning of any topic to include GT because GT is somehow (sometimes very remotely) associated with anything to do with St Kilda.

We are stating that you were given all the leeway we were going to give you before taking more punative steps to try and bring you into line.

 

[chas]

You were off topic.

because GT is somehow (sometimes very remotely) associated with anything to do with St Kilda.

Well that explains it Grant the Man is hardly associated with St Kilda phhhsst lol

 

[Kildonan]

Perhaps someone should have a thorough balanced calm drawn-out discussion with him about WHY GT shouldnt be sacked, why it isnt his fault, and what realistic options are there to get the team moving forward, while also asking him to discuss at length his views, and then somehow trying to get him to understand why he is wrong or understanding yourselves why he might be right, etc, in a calm civil and respectful manner.

Do you mean like this?

Grant Thomas has acted in the best interests of the St Kilda Football Club in all his association with it. As a player, he seved the club well. He was State of Origin Rep twice (IIRC) and a solid defender of the dour type. As an official, he was instrumental in changes at our club that were necessary. He (and Rod Butterss) changed the "culture" of the club. Adopting professional management techniques, the club, over time, upgraded virtually every aspect of itself. Thomas was instrumental in the recruitment of Malcolm Blight. Blight was reluctant to come and critical of the amenities and conditions. Thomas was instrumental in upgrading as much as was possible. Thomas is a great manager of people. He deals with people honestly and concisely and quickly earns the respect of those he deals with. He is blunt, at times, with those who he needs to be blunt with. Thomas surrounds himself with competent, quality personnel whom he "empowers" with specific roles and responsibilities.

It took three quarters of a season of football before St Kilda realised that Malcolm Blight just wasn't committed to the task. We'll never know how we'd gone if they didn't get rid of him. He may have come good, but St Kilda were paying him a premium wage and were expecting a premium commitment and premium results. Blight was not performing to anywhere near that level. Thomas offered to take over as caretaker coach until the end of the season. He had coached after his football career (a triple premiership coach in a much inferior league to AFL). The search for a replacement coach began and Thomas took the team into what he wanted to treat as one long preseason for next year. Under his tutelage the team instantly looked faster and more confident. Young stars Riewoldt and Koschitzke were in their first year, Riewoldt had missed most of the season recovering from surgery.
Koschitzke won the rising star that year. Most of the (coaching) credit for that should go to Blight as Kosi had played most of his games that year under him. Nick went on to win it the next year. Thomas talked to all the squad and set them goals. They gave their all for the last seven weeks and in the last match won against a highly fancied Hawthorn outfit (knocking them out of the four). A lucky win, but one that was the first tasted by many in the team. Such was the improvement of the squad in that short period that Thomas was encouraged to consider taking over and coaching them himself. An exhaustive process of interviews went on for a replacement coach. No-one stood out as an outstanding prospect and eventually the Saints decided that Grant Thomas was a better gamble. At least they knew he would be committed to the task. At that stage, (Round 16, 2001) the Saints had lost 41 of their last 49 games.

Grant Thomas empowered the recruiting officer, John Beveridge, to use his own judgement (previous coaches had interfered and overruled his advice).
Trades: Heath Black(Fremantle) for pick #17, Trent Knobel (Brisbane) for pick #45, Draft pick #13 for Barry Hall and Draft pick #53.
Pre-Season Draft: #1 Brett Voss (Brisbane)
National Draft Selections:#2 Luke Ball, #5 Xavier Clarke, 13 Nick Dal Santo, #21 Matt Maguire, #37 Leigh Montagna, #49 Josh Houlihan

In 2002 GT was appointed as the Coach. The team had finished 16th and 15th in its last two seasons. This year St Kilda suffered longterm injuries to many of the key senior players Gehrig, Harvey, Everitt, Koschitzke, and many more. The Saints were forced to play kids as replacements for these. The squad was improving but the results were invisible because of the loss of the senior players. This is the time of another "infamous" draw this time against Sydney. St Kilda flooded the defence (in one of only two games that they ever attempted flooding style match. The second was the next week against Collingwood, who had the game won before half time). Thomas was not afraid to go outside the square. The tactics used probably helped, but it was the fierce determination of the youthful squad. (I think their available players for selection from was almost the bare 22 they had out on the field). St Kilda again finished second last that season (5 wins, 1 draw), having missed out on a priority pick by half a game indicating that despite the dismal performance, the Saints goals were primarily winning, not collecting highly ranked recruits. This is the year that Carlton were penalised their priority pick and first 2 rounds of draft picks for repeated salary cap infringements. St Kilda initially had pick #3 as their first pick, this became pick #1 after the penalties were put in place.
Trades: Draft picks #6 and #22 for Peter Everitt, Luke Penny for Draft pick #17, Barry Brooks for Draft picks #6 and #31.
National Draft Selections: #1 Brendon Goddard, #22 Matthew Ferguson, #46 Leigh Fisher.

In 2003 the Saints had a break-even year (11 wins, 11 losses) with wins over highly ranked Adelaide and Brisbane. After the win against Brisbane we had a drop in form. Injuries to a few key defenders showed up our lack of depth. The improvement being shown by all players but especially the younger brigade augured well for the future. The Saints finished the season with four impressive wins and a narrow loss to Geelong. After the season they traded for depth.

In 2004 the Saints started like a bull at a gate, winning the Wizard Cup, then going on to win the first ten in a row of the H&A season. There was a mid-season slump followed by a recovery that saw them fail by a goal in making an appearance in the Grand Final. The early season success focused a lot of attention on the Saints. For the first time since 97/98 they became the hunted. They had a long season of intensity and gained finals experience. After the season they again traded for depth whilst gaining the services of a young gun in Andrew McQualter.

In 2005 the Saints were preseason favourites for the flag, but the first half of the season was dominated by injuries. Just past the half way mark of the season, St Kilda remained out of the top eight and many had decided that they couldn't figure in the finals. They proceded to win 8 of the next 9 H&A games, their only defeat being against Fremantle at Subiaco with a kick after the siren. That game saw a number of players injured and was contraversial due to remarks made supposedly by one of the umpires officiating the match. They finished fourth in the H&A season ladder. They played the qualifying final in Adelaide against Adelaide FC and won, then returned to Melbourne with a week off before playing Sydney in the preliminary final. Sydney overran the Saints in the final quarter. St Kilda recruited youth and a mature VFL ruckman, Michael Rix.

In 2006 the Saints were again preseason favourites for the flag, but were slow to find form. They lost in Subi to WCE (who are undefeated), narrowly beat a hyped up Richmond, comfortably downed Brisbane before losing narrowly to Port in Adelaide and to Freo in Tassie (the imfamous drawn match). They have had a hard run and now get to play some matches at home.

or this...

When Grant Thomas took over coaching, he had a lot to learn.
He was exceptional at motivating the players and in team preparation during the week. He developed a playing style that was fast paced, attacking, and highly skilled. Players would be set tasks and match ups made early and they would spend the week going over what he wanted them to do.
The team was dependent on just a few leaders and if these leaders were unable to play, the whole team morale would drop. Grant decided to fast track leadership and he de-emphasised the individual, placing focus on the team. Hence the rotating Captaincy policy that he has been heavily criticised for.
Eventually St Kilda improved to be a team that could win when one or more of their "stars" were sidelined. This was as much to do with psychology as it was on leadership from others. Grant learned while doing the job and developed a better approach to rotating midfielders off the bench, which he has further developed into "resting" on the ground, often in the forward line.
His match day player movements were often reactionary rather than proactive, and often perceived as too late. Much of this was his confidence in his players to perform the role he asked. He has also developed the players to search for alternatives themselves. He wants them to make the courageous decisions like moving to a neutral position if their opponent is dominating, drawing them out of the heavy play zones. He has gone from being reactionary to proactive in these last two years. He is actively moving players around to avoid tags or undesired match ups. He manoevres key opposition defensive players out of their comfort zone to help our forwards out. He is persistent and makes the opposition coach work hard to keep on top of his moves.

Unfortunately, without a full list, Grant has one arm tied behind his back when it comes to the tactical battle. The inclusion of Justin Koschitzke is really good news here, as he regains full fitness, he will become the most valuable player on our list, not just for his playing ability, but due mainly to his outstanding versatility. He becomes the dangerous forward, the menacing ruck, the rock in defence, the mobile tall link man and all the time he is serving two roles, his own game and that of drawing a player or players from the opposition allowing a better match up on our other talls.

I don't have a problem with Grant's match day skills. Most who criticise them don't have a clue what they're talking about. In fact I doubt anyone who criticises Grant Thomas has any real football nous at all.

I could post much more...

 

[Kildonan]

Yeah man, I am trolling to get rid of Grant Thomas so St Kilda can at last win a premiereship. What a troll i am

Well at least we agree on something.